Change Control - DOC by dfhrf555fcg

VIEWS: 174 PAGES: 15

Change Control

More Info
									 Common Basic Dataset
    Change Control

  (Extract from DSG CC Process)

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc   Page 1 of 15
Product History

Key Personnel

Authors                Lin Houston / Stewart Burton
Approver               Paul Stoker / Gwen McGill
Owner                  Wendy Turpin

Version History

Version                Date                  Summary of changes
1.0                    03/12/09              CBDS Change Control process
                                             extracted from DSG CC
                                             process for uploading onto
                                             Teachernet CBDS pages

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                      Page 2 of 15
1.     Introduction                                                  4

2.     Scope                                                         4

3.     Aims                                                          5

4.     Principles                                                    5

5.     Change Lifecycle                                              5

6.     Change Sources and Types                                      6

7.     Change Control Processes                                      7

              7.2     Changes to the Common Basic Data Set           10

Appendix A: High Level Process Flow – Common Basic Data Set          19

Appendix D: RFC Form Template (with guidance)                        21

Appendix E: Glossary of Terms                                        23

Appendix F: Possible Impact Assessor Groups                          25

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                      Page 3 of 15
1.     Introduction

1.1    Change Control is a process by which suggested changes to a Project
       or Programme’s Scope, Plan or Deliverables can be recorded,
       managed and controlled. Uncontrolled changes to scope or plans are
       one of the most common causes of failure in Projects or Programmes,
       usually because these lead either to the wrong things being delivered
       or to the project having insufficient resources to deliver the changed

1.2    The controlled delivery of the DSG Work Programme demands clear
       and timely communication between all the parties involved. Requests
       for Change (RFC) to the baselined deliverables must be formally
       recorded, assessed and approved.

1.3    The active management of RFCs is mandatory for all. RFCs must be
       assessed and authorised before being implemented. Records relating
       to RFCs must be maintained so that their current status can be
       determined at any stage in their lifecycle.

2.     Scope

2.1    This process covers all activities associated with RFCs which are
       defined as the modification, however small, of any baselined / agreed
       product within individual Projects, Services or Worklines, e.g. business
       requirements, scope, functionality, documentation, specifications and
       data standards, hardware, software, definition, timescales or

2.2    This change control process includes all activities associated with the
       handling of any RFC which arises during the Work Programme life
       cycle. Changes to the baselined Work Programme, i.e. adding,
       ceasing or deferring a Workline must follow this process and be signed
       off by the appropriate level of authority. It is important to ensure that
       the DSG PMO is aware of all changes that could affect the benefits of
       the Work Programme as well as its associated costs and resource

2.3    Whilst there is no restriction on who can raise an RFC, these should
       be channelled through the appropriate Workline Manager and the
       procedures detailed in this document should be followed.

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                             Page 4 of 15
3.     Aims

3.1    The aims of the Change Control Process are:

          To ensure an open and consistent approach to handling and
           facilitating changes across all of DSG’s products e.g. CBDS (and
           the individual items within it), Business and Technical
           Specifications, Summaries and Guidance Notes, Common Transfer
           Files and the DSG Work Programme.

          To ensure that change (both in terms of its content and the timing of
           its implementation) is rigorously managed and that the implications
           of proposed changes are fully understood, assessed and
           acceptable to all internal and external stakeholders.

          To provide a robust audit trail for all change requests.

          To ensure that other change control processes have been adhered
           to (e.g. Star Chamber, Information Standards Board)

4.     Principles

4.1    The following principles should underpin all change requests:

          All RFCs will be treated fairly

          All RFCs will be assessed by the appropriate people to ensure their
           impact is properly considered, and

          All RFCs will be put through the process as quickly as possible. If
           urgent changes are required which require “fast tracking”, the
           process will still be followed, but it may call upon ad hoc meetings
           outside of the normal approval timetable.

5.     Change Lifecycle

5.1    There are 5 stages within the generic RFC process:

          Identifying, screening and raising
          Logging
          Impact assessment
          Authorisation
          Implementation and communication

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                              Page 5 of 15
6.     Change Sources and Types

6.1    Requests for change can come from a number of sources, for example:

          Policy teams
          Development teams
          Customer Services
          Helpdesk
          End users
          A risk or issue highlighting that a change is required
          A requirement from a Quality Review or Audit
          External changes e.g. new legislation

6.2    For the purposes of producing specific RFC procedures for different
       change types, the 3 broad categories are:

          Changes to the Worklines in the baselined DSG Work Programme
          Changes to the Common Basic Data Set (CBDS)
          Other changes (e.g. to a baselined document such as a product
           description or technical specification).

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                            Page 6 of 15
7.     Change Control Procedures

7.2    Changes to the Common Basic Data Set (CBDS)

7.2.1 Before any detailed work to assess the impact of the change is
      undertaken, the following activities should be carried out:

 Ref                         Activity                         Action By
Stage1 Identify, screen and raise the RFC
  1.1  Identify the change. If the change is a new        RFC Originator
       data requirement (e.g. a new data item, a new
       code set, a significant change to an
       existing data item) the Originator should
       consider the need to go through the Star
       Chamber first for their approval. Any RFC for
       a new data requirement which has not had the
       approval of the Star Chamber will be rejected
       by the CBDS Administrator.
  1.2  Identify the potential data standard. If the       CBDS
       change has had the approval of Star Chamber        Administrator
       and now requires a change to CBDS, the
       Originator must check that there is not already
       a relevant standard created by the Education,
       Schools and Childrens Services Information
       Standards Board (ESCS ISB). The CBDS
       Administrator can help the Originator do this
       necessary action. Again, any RFC that has
       not checked ISB standards will be rejected by
       the CBDS Administrator.
  1.3  If Star Chamber approval has been gained,          RFC Originator
       ISB standards checked and an RFC for
       changes to the CBDS is required, the
       originator must fully complete Section 1 of the
       Request for Change Form (Appendix D),
       including, for CBDS changes, the data item,
       code list or relevant metadata for a new item.
       The completed form is then emailed to the
       CBDS Administrator who will forward it to PMO
       so that it can be allocated an RFC number.
       External RFCs should be sent to which
       will be monitored by the CBDS Administrator.
  1.4  On receipt, all RFCs will be allocated a           DDU/PMO
       reference number by the PMO and returned to
       the DDU to be screened to ensure that
       duplicates, unamended re-submissions,
       proposals out of scope, frivolous or with
       insufficient supporting information are filtered
       out. Within two working days, the RFC will

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                          Page 7 of 15
 Ref                          Activity                            Action By
       either be progressed or returned to originator
       (with reasons if rejected or with a request for
       further information if required).
Stage2 Logging the RFC
  2.1  For those RFCs that are successful at the              PMO
       screening stage, the PMO logs all of the
       relevant information including the RFC details,
       the Impact Assessment arrangements and,
       once complete, the outcome details.

7.2.2 The impact of the change must be analysed (including the impact of
      not carrying out the change). The steps below show the activities that
      will potentially need to be considered.

 Ref                        Activity                              Action By
Stage3 Impact Assessment
  3.1  The Workline Manager, together with Policy             Workline
       Leads, Project/Service Managers and the Data           Manager/CBDS
       Development Team, identifies who (internal             Administrator
       and external), will carry out the impact
       assessment to assess the viability of the
       change and any burden on Schools, Local
       Authorities and relevant Software Suppliers.
  3.2  The Impact Assessors will determine how the            Impact Assessors
       change will:

                Improve the education of
                Reduce (or increase) bureaucracy both
                 internally and externally
                Save or incur additional resources
                Meet statutory requirements (including
                 DPA and HRA)
         And also how the change will impact on:
                Other CBDS levels
                Wales CBDS
                Other projects
                All existing data collections and transfer
                 systems that make use of the CBDS
                Management Information Systems
                Data providers within Schools and LAs
                 (extra time spent or time saved)

         Impact Assessors should fully complete

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                             Page 8 of 15
         Section 2 of the RFC form and return the form
         to the Data Development Team.

7.2.3 The Data Development Team collate the impact assessments and
      carries out the activities detailed below.

 Ref                        Activity                          Action By
Stage4 Authorisation
  4.1  A summary of the assessments received is           CBDS
       produced by the CBDS Administrator.                Administrator
  4.2  Based on the assessment of the impacts, a          CBDS
       recommendation is made to the DSG Data             Administrator/Data
       Standards Board. The recommendation may            Development
       be to accept, defer (accepted with                 Team/Data
       modifications and deferred for future releases)    Standards Board
       or reject the change.
  4.3  Notification of the board’s decision will be       CBDS
       given to all stakeholders (including the PMO)      Administrator
       by the CBDS Administrator and the RFC log
       will be updated with the details of the outcome.

7.2.4 Where approval to proceed with the change has been given, the
      activity below will be undertaken.

 Ref                        Activity                          Action By
Stage5 Implementation
  5.1  CBDS will be updated with the approved             CBDS
       change, full audit trail and a link to the         Administrator
       published RFC as soon as is practical (target
       of 5-10 working days).

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                          Page 9 of 15
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Appendix A

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Appendix C

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Appendix B
                                                                                                         Change Control High Level Process Flow – CBDS Changes
Changes to the Common Basic Data Set
    RFC Originator

                     Change identified      Identify data     Complete Section                                                   Further info
                      (new data items     standard (check     1 of the RFC form                                                  gathered as
                                                                                                                                                       informed of
                        need SCSB          ESCS ISB for       and forward to the                                              requested and re-
                         approval)       existing standard)          PMO                                                      submitted to DDU

                                                                                                                                                                      PMO log initial

                                                                                   Assign a reference
                                                                                                                                                           No          details and
                                                                                     a number and                                   Yes                                                                                                                                                                        PMO updates log   PMO updates log
                                                                                                                                                                        forward to
                                                                                    forward to DDU
                                                                                                                                                                     Workline Manager

                                                                                                         Screen RFC to

                                                                                                        filter out invalid/     Further info            RFC to be
                                                                                                                                                  No                       Yes
                                                                                                          inappropriate          needed?               progressed?

                                                                                                                                                                                        Impact Assessors
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Modifications                          Complete Section
                                                                                                                                                                                           identified in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         made/requested                          3 of RFC form and
                                                                                                                                                                                         consultation with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          info gathered                           forward to PMO
                                                                                                                                                                                         policy, DDU etc.

                                           Data standard                                                                                                                                                      RFC sent out to                      Impacts summary                                                                                    New version of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Stakeholders          Stakeholders       Stakeholders
                                          identified (check                                                                                                                                                  Impact Assessors                         produced and                                                                                   CBDS (with audit
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           notified of           notified of        notified of
                                            ESCS ISB for                                                                                                                                                       (completing                          recommendation                                                                                    trail and RFC)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            outcome               outcome            outcome
                                         existing standard)                                                                                                                                                     Section2)                             made to DSB                                                                                        published

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Yes                    No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 carried out and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                returned to DDU


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Decision made to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Further info            RFC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      accept, defer or                    No
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            needed?              approved?

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                                                                                                                                                  Page 10 of 15
                                                                                                  Appendix D

      Data Services Group - Request for Change Form

 Section 1 – Details of Change
 <<Guidance notes should be deleted prior to submitting the form>>

 Project/Service:                                               Type of Change:
 <<Name and strand reference number e.g. School Census          <<E.g. CBDS Changes,
 Spring 2010 - 0910/089>>                                       Project Scope, Plans,           <<Issued by the
                                                                Specification or               PMO on receipt of
                                                                Timescale>>                       this form>>
 Name and team/company of RFC Originator:
 <<E.g. Joe Bloggs, Customer Service Unit>>

 Originator Contact No:                                    Originator email address:

 Date RFC Raised:                                          Date change required:
 <<The date Section 1 is emailed to the PMO>>              <<To include Census date/Software release date if
 Priority:                                                 1=Vital (Without this change the collection/transfer of
                                                           data cannot take place, no work-around is possible)
                                                           2 =High (It will cause problems to operate without this
 <<Enter the appropriate priority marking from the
                                                           change, any work-around will be burdensome and only
 descriptions opposite>>
                                                           practical for a short time)
                                                           3=Medium (Current process/work around is working
                                                           fine but would be slicker)
                                                           4=Low (Nice to have but does not affect functionality)
                                                           5=Cosmetic (Corrections to typos etc.)
 DSG Contact:
 <<E.g. Workline Manager (Project/Service Manager or Team Leader/G6) or CBDS Administrator>>

 Change Title: <<The name under which this request will be recorded>>

 Data item/Rule Number: <<If applicable>>

 Description of change:
 <<Specific details of the proposed change. For changes to CBDS data items, include Description, Reference
 number and, for new data items, metadata (for metadata requirements see current CBDS and also refer to>>

 Reason for change (including benefits):
 <<Include details of any consultation/impact analysis already undertaken>>

 Impact of not doing the change:
 <<Include details of any consultation/impact analysis already undertaken>>

 Funding availability:
 <<For internal DCSF requests, what level of funding, e.g. programme and/or administration costs, is available to
 implement any changes >>

 Impact assessment to be undertaken by:
 <<Names/groups of internal colleagues/external partners who will assess the impact of the change>>

 Date consulted:                                           Response requested by:
 <<The date this form is sent out to impact assessors>>    <<The latest date impacts will be accepted>>

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                                                           Page 11 of 15
 Section 2 – Impact Analysis
                                  Summary of Impact Assessment:

   <<What are the impacts of proceeding and not/partially proceeding with this change. This should include as a
  minimum the impact on areas such as funding/costs; resource/ personnel and burdens on LAs, schools and their
 systems, who needs to be informed of the outcome of the request and how will this be communicated. This list is
  not exhaustive and additional guidance on what should be considered here can be found in the Change Control
                                             process document >>

                      Alternative Solutions/Workarounds (if appropriate):

 Estimated Cost of Change:
 COST:                       EFFORT:                   PLANNED DATE:               PLANNED RELEASE:

 Impact Assessed by(name):                                                                Date:

 Section 3 – Outcome/Decision
 Review Meeting: <<Name of meeting e.g. Project Board, Strategy Board, DSB Data Standards Board>>

 Attendees:                                                                   Date of Review Meeting:

                                    Brief Summary of Discussion:

    <<Include any points of concern and whether these were resolved or not as well as any additional benefits
                                      identified or other relevant details>>

 Accept /Reject:                                       Deferred to:
 <<N.B. - Pending funding approval>>                   <<Date decision will be taken>>

 Type of Funding:                                      Fund Holder Agreement:
 <<E.g. programme or administration funding>>          <<Name of person who has approved the spend for this

                                       If Accept, provide details:
   <<Include next steps e.g. what the new CBDS numbers will be, the earliest implementation date and the date,
          method and person responsible for communications to the originator and other stakeholders >>

                                    If Reject/Defer, provide details:

   <<Reasons why change was not approved e.g. insufficient resource to implement, lack of available funding or
              what additional information has been requested if the change has been deferred >>

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                                                          Page 12 of 15
                                                                   Appendix E

Glossary of Terms

Common Basic Data Set (CBDS)
This is a set of data definitions and code sets which provides a standard for
data used in software systems for management information in schools, local
authorities, other children's institutions, the DCSF and other Government

DSG Delivery Board
The forum which discusses RFCs which exceed the tolerance of the Project
or Service Board.

DSG Owner
The person responsible for the delivery of a specific Workline as specified in
the DSG Work Programme.

Impact Assessors
The people identified by the Project/Service Manager/Coordinator/Lead to
carry out an impact assessment of the RFC.

Information Standards Board (ISB)
The Information Standards Board (ISB) for Education, Skills and Children’s
Services (ESCS) will be the overarching authority and governing body for the
management and assurance of information and data standards across the
ESCS system. Approved ISB information standards will ensure that
information is stored in common, consistent formats which will aid front line
delivery, reduce bureaucracy and enable a more joined up service. Contact
the CBDS Administrator for more details on ISB.

Project Board
The Project Board is responsible for the overall direction and management of
a project and has responsibility and authority for the project within the remit
set by the Delivery Board.

RFC Originator
Whoever identifies the need for the change should consult with the relevant
Workline Manager to determine who would be the most appropriate person to
complete Section 1 of the RFC detailing the requirements and benefits of the
change. This person is the RFC Originator.

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                            Page 13 of 15
Star Chamber Scrutiny Board (SCSB)
The Star Chamber was formed in 1999 and is the main vehicle in the
Department's drive to reduce bureaucracy impacting on local authority
children's services (including education) and schools. It ensures that new
data collection exercises do not create unnecessary burden; do not duplicate
in content existing collections; seeks to keep data requests to the absolute
minimum needed to develop policy; and will amalgamate and streamline
exercises wherever possible. It comprises head teachers and local authority
representatives and is given the power to make the decisions on whether the
collection proposals should receive approval. Contact Simon Grigor for more
details on how to submit a business case to SCSB.

DSG Strategy Board
The decision making body which approves or rejects all RFCs relating to
stopping, starting or deferring a business line on the DSG Work Programme.
Also approves or rejects the RFCs which have exceeded tolerance and have
been escalated from the Delivery Board.

Tolerance is the permissible deviation from a plan without bringing the
deviation to the attention of the next level of authority. The two standard
elements to tolerance are time and cost. This would initially be set by the
Project/Service Board or budget holder/customer.

Work Programme
All of the project and service Worklines which together make up the agreed
programme of work for the year within DSG.

Working Group
The initial decision making body which consists of the Workstream Leads and
the Project/Service Manager. Their role is to either approve RFCs which are
within tolerance or escalate those exceeding tolerance to the Project/Delivery

Workline Manager
The person responsible for the day-to-day management of the Workline. This
can be a Project or Service Manager for a collection but may also be a Team
Leader, G6 or other individual co-ordinating or leading the work within an
individual Workline.

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                            Page 14 of 15
Possible Impact Assessor Groups                                        Appendix F

Software Suppliers
Any supplier of software to schools or LAs may become a member. All RFCs will be
sent to all “relevant” suppliers. Suppliers should ensure the CBDS Administrator (via is kept abreast of their software’s coverage
(eg. MIS system, assessments, admissions, childrens services, timetabling etc etc)
Protocol Partners
A group of representatives of Partner organisations who have signed (or are potential
signatories of) the Protocol on Data Sharing and Rationalisation in the Schools

    DCSF                                       National Federation for Educational
    GTCE                                        Research
    BECTA                                      NCSL
    LGA                                        Special Schools Trust
    QCA                                        Partnerships For Schools
    Confed                                     National Bursars Association
    TDA                                        Independent Schools Council
    LSC                                        UCAS
    Ofsted                                     Joint Council For Qualifications
    Audit Commission                           NAGTY

Awarding Body Group
Representatives from any Awarding Body
School/LA Focus Groups
Consultation groups with voluntary representatives from schools and LAs
  DCSF                                         National Association of School
  Association of Teachers and                   Masters/Union of Women Teachers
    Lecturers (ATL)                              (NASUWT)
  Audit Commission                             National Union of Teachers (NUT)
  Chartered Institute of Public Finance        Ofsted
    and Accountancy (CIPFA)                     Professional Association of
  Department for Education Northern             Teachers (PAT)
    Ireland (DENI)                              Qualifications and Curriculum
  General Teaching Council for                  Authority (QCA)
    England (GTC)                               Scottish Executive (SE)
  Learning and Skills Council (LSC)            Secondary Heads Association
  Local Government Association (LGA)            (SHA)
  Employers’ Organisation for Local            Society of Education Officers (SEO)
    Government (EO)                             Teacher Training Agency (TTA)
  National Assembly for Wales (NAW)            UNISON
  National Assessment Agency (NAA
  National Association of Headteachers

a01d4cdc-2fa8-4e79-8e3d-d37b688ce696.doc                                Page 15 of 15

To top